Text of 6-23-2022 U.S. Supreme Court Opinion in NYS Rifle & Pistol Assoc vs. Bruen

[johnkarls]

Originally posted by johnkarls » Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:15 pm


Sec. 5 of the Original Proposal (please see above) was entitled “Salient U.S. Supreme Court Second-Amendment Decisions (INCLUDING ITS IMMINENT DECISION IN NEW YORK STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION VS. BRUEN)” and said in toto --


The Second Amendment says –

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Regardless of the historical analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court, we have often studied in other contexts --

1. Contrary to popular perception, George Washington and the Revolutionary Army were NOT the reason for the 13 colonies winning their independence from England.

2. Throughout the conflict, George Washington and his army did virtually nothing but retreat, finally facing surrender on Chesapeake Bay when Lord Cornwallis’ troops which had out-run their supply lines, were expecting the English fleet to show up with new supplies and “saw the writing on the wall” when the French fleet showed up instead.

3. Cornwallis immediately surrendered and Washington was credited by historians with the victory – but it was really the French fleet which should have been credited!!!

4. THE REAL AMERICAN HEROES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WERE THE “MINUTEMEN” who, literally as described inter alia in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s epic poem “Paul Revere’s Ride,” were expected, AND DID, grab their muskets and WITHIN ONE MINUTE of receiving an alarm, were engaging English “Red Coats.”

So why is it so surprising that the U.S. Supreme Court would --

1. Uphold the Second Amendment right of homeowners to bear arms to protect their homes.

2. Restrict the right to bear arms to muskets and their modern-day equivalent – not tanks, airplanes, etc.

Salient U.S. Supreme Court decisions --

1. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) - The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

2. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) – The Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, courtesy of the “Due Process Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment.

3. Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) – the Second Amendment extends to all “bearable arms” even if not in existence at the time the Second Amendment was adopted (and re-affirmed that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to state and local governments).

4. New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (imminent) – Per the Petition for Certiorari (request for the Court to accept the case), the “Question Presented For Review” was --

“Whether a state court’s decision that a criminal defendant can be falsely accused during his criminal murder trial of ‘illegally’ possessing outside his home a legal firearm for the purpose of self defense is a reasonable application of clearly-established federal law.”

********************End of Sec. 5 of the Original Proposal********************


The U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen earlier today (June 23).

Here is the 135-page text of their decision --

RL-j623-Text - U.S. Supreme Court Decision - New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Supeintendent of NYS Police, et al..pdf

(609.78 KiB) Downloaded 67 times

(609.78 KiB) Downloaded 24 times in Sec. 3 (Possible Topics for Future Meetings) before this posting was transplanted here.


The Syllabus (aka unofficial summary) starts on p. 1

The “Opinion of the Court” written by Clarence Thomas in which John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined, starts on p. 7.

Samuel Alito also wrote a “Concurring Opinion” which starts at p. 70.

Brett Kavanaugh also wrote a “Concurring Opinion” in which John Roberts joined, which starts at p. 79.

Amy Coney Barrett also wrote a “Concurring Opinion” which starts at p. 82.

Stephen Breyer wrote a “Dissenting Opinion” in which Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined, which starts at p. 84.